What Is Philosophy?

[No Robots]

Spoken like a true Jew.

I am not a true Jew, as one of my Jewish uncles was inclined to point out at any opportunity.

Heh. I meant "true" in the sense of true to the spirit, if not the letter.

 

[DBT]

I don't think that anyone is saying that there is no relationship between science and philosophy, just that science as a means of exploring the natural world split off into a distinct field of its own, which is why we have both science and philosophy, and not just philosophy.

The confusion is thinking that this makes science autonomous from philosophy, and philosophy superfluous and unnecessary. It does not. Neuroscience is at present a distinct field, derived but independent from biology. Does that mean it would be prudent to studt neuroscience alone without a biological background? Certainly not! Nor can one engage in scientific enterprise without an understanding of the philosophy of science. If one does, one will make mistakes. Method and theory are in a complex relationship.

Regarding the analogy, are physicists, biologists, for instance, required to study philosophy in order to better understand physics or biology?

They aleady do. They are physicists and biologists, experts in an important branch of natural philosophy. Though I would argue that studying philosophy further, especially the philosophy of science, would be beneficial to students of biology and physics. Hence why most well-respected universities do have such a requirement.

Your problem may be that you hear "philosophy" and think "old men in togas" rather than "philosophy, a organized system of thought and inquiry". Classical philosophy is foundational to all modern philosophies, and I do think there is value in tracing things back sometimes, but when I say that science is philosophy, I do not mean that physics students need to be reading The Republic in between experiments. Against Method would be more relevant. If you ever want to be more than a lab tech or phlebotomist, if you really want to contribute to our common pool of human knowledge, then ultimately understanding what scientists do is not as important as understanding why they do it. Anyone can execute a protocol, take a sample, or enter some data. Not everyone grasps experimental design, or how to effectively analyze and communicate the results thereof.

Maybe in the study of the philosophy of science.

I don't see that physics or biology requires philosophy. Maybe optional.

Researchers are not doing philosophy when they fire up a collider and analyse the results. That is hard science.

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

 

[pood]

I don't think that anyone is saying that there is no relationship between science and philosophy, just that science as a means of exploring the natural world split off into a distinct field of its own, which is why we have both science and philosophy, and not just philosophy.

The confusion is thinking that this makes science autonomous from philosophy, and philosophy superfluous and unnecessary. It does not. Neuroscience is at present a distinct field, derived but independent from biology. Does that mean it would be prudent to studt neuroscience alone without a biological background? Certainly not! Nor can one engage in scientific enterprise without an understanding of the philosophy of science. If one does, one will make mistakes. Method and theory are in a complex relationship.

Regarding the analogy, are physicists, biologists, for instance, required to study philosophy in order to better understand physics or biology?

They aleady do. They are physicists and biologists, experts in an important branch of natural philosophy. Though I would argue that studying philosophy further, especially the philosophy of science, would be beneficial to students of biology and physics. Hence why most well-respected universities do have such a requirement.

Your problem may be that you hear "philosophy" and think "old men in togas" rather than "philosophy, a organized system of thought and inquiry". Classical philosophy is foundational to all modern philosophies, and I do think there is value in tracing things back sometimes, but when I say that science is philosophy, I do not mean that physics students need to be reading The Republic in between experiments. Against Method would be more relevant. If you ever want to be more than a lab tech or phlebotomist, if you really want to contribute to our common pool of human knowledge, then ultimately understanding what scientists do is not as important as understanding why they do it. Anyone can execute a protocol, take a sample, or enter some data. Not everyone grasps experimental design, or how to effectively analyze and communicate the results thereof.

Maybe in the study of the philosophy of science.

I don't see that physics or biology requires philosophy. Maybe optional.

Researchers are not doing philosophy when they fire up a collider and analyse the results. That is hard science.

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

Logic is classical branch of philosophy. It goes back to antiquity.

Analysis and interpretation of data depend on philosophical concepts. I’ve given many examples of this, among them the issues with Popper’s falsification.

 

[pood]

Three books by Norman Swartz about the intersection of philosophy and science. All can be downloaded for free. Highly recommended.

 

[DBT]

I don't think that anyone is saying that there is no relationship between science and philosophy, just that science as a means of exploring the natural world split off into a distinct field of its own, which is why we have both science and philosophy, and not just philosophy.

The confusion is thinking that this makes science autonomous from philosophy, and philosophy superfluous and unnecessary. It does not. Neuroscience is at present a distinct field, derived but independent from biology. Does that mean it would be prudent to studt neuroscience alone without a biological background? Certainly not! Nor can one engage in scientific enterprise without an understanding of the philosophy of science. If one does, one will make mistakes. Method and theory are in a complex relationship.

Regarding the analogy, are physicists, biologists, for instance, required to study philosophy in order to better understand physics or biology?

They aleady do. They are physicists and biologists, experts in an important branch of natural philosophy. Though I would argue that studying philosophy further, especially the philosophy of science, would be beneficial to students of biology and physics. Hence why most well-respected universities do have such a requirement.

Your problem may be that you hear "philosophy" and think "old men in togas" rather than "philosophy, a organized system of thought and inquiry". Classical philosophy is foundational to all modern philosophies, and I do think there is value in tracing things back sometimes, but when I say that science is philosophy, I do not mean that physics students need to be reading The Republic in between experiments. Against Method would be more relevant. If you ever want to be more than a lab tech or phlebotomist, if you really want to contribute to our common pool of human knowledge, then ultimately understanding what scientists do is not as important as understanding why they do it. Anyone can execute a protocol, take a sample, or enter some data. Not everyone grasps experimental design, or how to effectively analyze and communicate the results thereof.

Maybe in the study of the philosophy of science.

I don't see that physics or biology requires philosophy. Maybe optional.

Researchers are not doing philosophy when they fire up a collider and analyse the results. That is hard science.

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

Logic is classical branch of philosophy. It goes back to antiquity.

Analysis and interpretation of data depend on philosophical concepts. I’ve given many examples of this, among them the issues with Popper’s falsification.

Logic, though used in philosophy (and science), appears to be independent of it. We can use logic without being philosophers or scientists, or be practising philosophy or science.

 

[pood]

Logic, though used in philosophy (and science), appears to be independent of it. We can use logic without being philosophers or scientists, or be practising philosophy or science.

Logic is classical branch of philosophy. To say it is independent of what it is a branch of is patently absurd.

 

[pood]

Evolutionary theory is independent of biology. How about that?

 

[pood]

Philosophy. In some ways I can’t believe I’m having this discussion. I expect better of posters here, tbh.

 

[DBT]

Logic, though used in philosophy (and science), appears to be independent of it. We can use logic without being philosophers or scientists, or be practising philosophy or science.

Logic is classical branch of philosophy. To say it is independent of what it is a branch of is patently absurd.

It is a branch of philosophy in the sense that philosophy uses logic, but if logic is "characterized as the study of truths based completely on the meanings of the terms they contain," it is independent of philosophical inquiry, where for instance, making a selection based on a set of criteria is a matter of logic, but not philosophy.

 

[DBT]

Philosophy. In some ways I can’t believe I’m having this discussion. I expect better of posters here, tbh.

It's a discussion forum. We don't need to nod our heads in unison. We can argue.

 

[DBT]

Evolutionary theory is independent of biology. How about that?

But biology and evolution does happen independently of evolutionary theory....no?

I think that's where the distinction lies, and what I'm trying to get at.

 

[bilby]

Evolutionary theory is independent of biology. How about that?

Natural Selection certainly is. It explains how a random assortment of stones of different sizes are sorted by size by a river, or by the ocean, just as well as it explains how a random assortment of biological mutations are sorted by reproductive success.

 

[bilby]

It's a discussion forum. We don't need to nod our heads in unison. We can argue.

No we can't.

 

[pood]

Evolutionary theory is independent of biology. How about that?

Natural Selection certainly is. It explains how a random assortment of stones of different sizes are sorted by size by a river, or by the ocean, just as well as it explains how a random assortment of biological mutations are sorted by reproductive success.

Sure, but you still need the biological mutations, which of course involves biology.

 

[pood]

Also, there is evolution via genetic drift.

 

[pood]

There is a whole philosophy of biology. How do we demarcate species? What role does selection vs. drift play in evolution? As I believe I once linked, Dawkins and Larry Moran had a big and contentious debate on this subject on Moran’s blog. Then there is the recent paper I linked indicating it’s possible that not all mutations are random with respect to the environment. All philosophy, Though the stuff about the nature of mutations is going to be answered empirically, if it is ever answered at all. But empiricism is a philosophical concept.

 

[Politesse]

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

Well yes. If you randomly define anything you don't like as "not philosophy", then "philosophy" will not describe anything you like. That is very trivially true. But why should anyone else accept your personal definition of philosophy as reasonable?

 

[DBT]

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

Well yes. If you randomly define anything you don't like as "not philosophy", then "philosophy" will not describe anything you like. That is very trivially true. But why should anyone else accept your personal definition of philosophy as reasonable?

Just trying to sort out what may or may not be defined as philosophy.

For instance, people in prehistoric times were intelligent and had the ability to think and act logically, but can that ability be defined as philosophy?

Were they philosophers? Or is it just a matter of natural, practical logic?

 

[DBT]

It's a discussion forum. We don't need to nod our heads in unison. We can argue.

No we can't.

We could nod our heads and congratulate ourselves.

 

[Politesse]

Analysis is not philosophy. Logic, through used in both science and philosophy, is not philosophy.

Well yes. If you randomly define anything you don't like as "not philosophy", then "philosophy" will not describe anything you like. That is very trivially true. But why should anyone else accept your personal definition of philosophy as reasonable?

Just trying to sort out what may or may not be defined as philosophy.

For instance, people in prehistoric times were intelligent and had the ability to think and act logically, but can that ability be defined as philosophy?

Were they philosophers? Or is it just a matter of natural, practical logic?

That depends. Did they form a systematic, orderly approach to thought? If so, then yes, that is philosophy, and what century they did it in is irrelevant. If not, then no, and the century they did it in is still irrelevant.

Your terms "natural" and "practical" themselves need the deconstructive efforts of a philosopher, if I may say so. They are words often invoked, but are often found attached to very different referents, and both have their origins in classical philosophy.